These Are The People In Your Neighborhood [W:159]

head of joaquin said:

Sure. Point is, saying burglary has increased doesn't tell us whether home invasions have. So the poster's purported rebuttal was nugatory.

I have to conclude he has no sense about how rare home invasion are, and doesn't want to know.

Click to expand...

Would you say they are less rare than mass murders in which an "assault" weapon was used?

head of joaquin said:

So that's why the inner city has the lowest crime rates, since gun ownership is highest there?

Wait. It's the opposite. Go figure.

Click to expand...

It's the highest because there are asshats out there that only want our legislators to create laws that are nothing more than feel good vote getters. Blame, local governments, community organizers and law enforcement for lacking the balls to enforce the laws on the books.

These Are The People In Your Neighborhood

Black Manta said:

Deflect what? You were wrong, had nothing of any substance to add and you accuse me of deflecting? Hehehehehe. Please point out what I was deflecting. And while you are at it, why don't you reply to this...



I think we can conclude at this point this is not true? So you still got nothing.



Please point out where I said anything even close? Do you even know who the untrained or unsavory are? Let me tell you...

Mainly the war on drugs allowed gangs an easy way to make money. Crack is highly addictive and when people get hooked, they are hooked. Add in a lack of fathers and to many mother only families on welfare and it is a recipe for disaster. Now add our economy which is slowly recovering but not anywhere close to what it was and you have gun crime in the inner cities shooting up the gun statistics.

No one seems to want to talk about minority on minority crime in the inner city but 70%+ of our gun crime comes from that alone. Everytime I mention it, it get's ignored. If you took away suicides and inner city crime from our overall statistics (adding suicide is just dishonest as it is not a crime) our gun crime rate even with mass shootings is about the same as any industrialized nation with or without strict gun laws.

The problem is nobody wants to hear that. They would rather rage about assault rifles and mass shootings (which are rare). Then pass laws that have no effect on either and pat themselves on the back. Then it happens again and they want even more laws that do nothing but disarm or make it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns.

That is how it got this way. We don't want to address the causes of said crime. We would rather pass more laws to make ourselves feel good. Until as I said, it happens again.

Now instead of posting garbage that means nothing. Why don't you actually address what I said? Or I can lump you into the same "anti-gun" group.

It's people like you that ignore the real gun problem. So you can take your dishonest "attitudes like these that make me lean anti-gun owner" and tell someone who might believe you. - http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-c...eople-your-neighborhood-6.html#post1061955131

Click to expand...

This is simply a masterpiece of a post. Clear facts. Eloquently stated yet direct and to the point. It hammers the facts. It leaves a resounding point and the only true way to respond to this post is really just blatantly ignore all the important points or agree. I don't come across many solidly stated points in DP. Hell not many in real life. This is one of them. I believe I might copy and save this post to my notes on my cell phone.

If you haven't been hired by the NRA or the gun lobby to deal with the Chicago problem...you should be.

Threegoofs said:

I wonder if legalizing automatic weapons will help.

After all, if guns reduce crime, automatic weapons will be more effective, right?

Click to expand...

Evidence, facts, data? Please explain your conjecture.

These Are The People In Your Neighborhood

Μολὼν λαβέ;1061962020 said:

Evidence, facts, data? Please explain your conjecture.

Click to expand...

just speculating. apparently, mr brilliance says its a strawman argument tho.

These Are The People In Your Neighborhood

Threegoofs said:

I wonder if legalizing automatic weapons will help.

After all, if guns reduce crime, automatic weapons will be more effective, right?

Click to expand...

They are legal. What is your point? That we should reduce firearms legislation? Or are you trying to troll?

You know automatic weapons are only efficient in the hands of someone who is trained to use automatic weapons right? Most people can't handle semi automatic efficiently either. Wait. I'm sensing a pattern. Efficiency doesn't seem to be based on the gun, but on another variable.

Threegoofs said:

just speculating. apparently, mr brilliance says its a strawman argument tho.

Click to expand...

So in other words...

Outside of ad hominems, false statements and excuses, you still got nothing. Thanks.

stonewall50 said:

This is simply a masterpiece of a post. Clear facts. Eloquently stated yet direct and to the point. It hammers the facts. It leaves a resounding point and the only true way to respond to this post is really just blatantly ignore all the important points or agree. I don't come across many solidly stated points in DP. Hell not many in real life. This is one of them. I believe I might copy and save this post to my notes on my cell phone.

If you haven't been hired by the NRA or the gun lobby to deal with the Chicago problem...you should be.

Click to expand...

Man I am humbled.

Thanks.

These Are The People In Your Neighborhood

Black Manta said:

Man I am humbled.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Get a room.

You avoided my question by pretending it was a strawman. Maybe you can find the gravitas to respond while you take your bows.

Lachean said:

That's criminals with guns, which you gun grabbers seem to be fine with, so of course crime is worse.

Why is your thinking so bass ackwards? Oh that's right you're from Chicago where they're too scared to prosecute violent criminals.

Click to expand...

No, not “scared”. Willfully on the side of violent criminals.

Threegoofs said:

Get a room.

You avoided my question by pretending it was a strawman. Maybe you can find the gravitas to respond while you take your bows.

Click to expand...

What question did I avoid? This is the second time I am asking? Are you going to lie some more? Here was your statement...

Threegoofs said:

I wonder if legalizing automatic weapons will help.

After all, if guns reduce crime, automatic weapons will be more effective, right?

Click to expand...

To which I replied...

Black Manta said:

Contrary to popular belief, fully automatic weapons are not illegal. They are however highly regulated.

Do you have anything other than strawman arguments to offer? I mean really?

Click to expand...

You seem to not know what a strawman is so here...

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Your comment "After all, if guns reduce crime, automatic weapons will be more effective, right?" ignores all evidence and comments made by myself and others on the causes and effects of crime. The you make the "distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."

Now please point out:

#1 What question I avoided
#2 What question I was "pretending it was a strawman"

I am still waiting for you or any anti gun person to reply to...

Black Manta said:

Mainly the war on drugs allowed gangs an easy way to make money. Crack is highly addictive and when people get hooked, they are hooked. Add in a lack of fathers and to many mother only families on welfare and it is a recipe for disaster. Now add our economy which is slowly recovering but not anywhere close to what it was and you have gun crime in the inner cities shooting up the gun statistics.

No one seems to want to talk about minority on minority crime in the inner city but 70%+ of our gun crime comes from that alone. Everytime I mention it, it get's ignored. If you took away suicides and inner city crime from our overall statistics (adding suicide is just dishonest as it is not a crime) our gun crime rate even with mass shootings is about the same as any industrialized nation with or without strict gun laws.

The problem is nobody wants to hear that. They would rather rage about assault rifles and mass shootings (which are rare). Then pass laws that have no effect on either and pat themselves on the back. Then it happens again and they want even more laws that do nothing but disarm or make it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns.

That is how it got this way. We don't want to address the causes of said crime. We would rather pass more laws to make ourselves feel good. Until as I said, it happens again.

Now instead of posting garbage that means nothing. Why don't you actually address what I said? Or I can lump you into the same "anti-gun" group.

It's people like you that ignore the real gun problem. So you can take your dishonest "attitudes like these that make me lean anti-gun owner" and tell someone who might believe you. - http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-c...eople-your-neighborhood-6.html#post1061955131

Click to expand...

Now that I have shown your argument in it's entirety to be nothing but a pack of untruths, hyperbole and strawman arguments, what do you have? I'll again tell you...

Nothing.

Threegoofs said:

Get a room.

You avoided my question by pretending it was a strawman. Maybe you can find the gravitas to respond while you take your bows.

Click to expand...

You have not even replied to this simple request because you can't, and you know it, period.

You lose in every conceivable way. Live with it.

Black Manta said:

Notice how the "anti-gun" crowd completely avoids my comments on the real problem with guns. Instead they want to blame legal gun owners.

I could not have asked for a better example.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much the standard tactic of the far wrong on most issues, not just guns. They promote policies which only create problems, and then try to blame the problems on those who oppose those policies.

These Are The People In Your Neighborhood

Black Manta said:

You have not even replied to this simple request because you can't, and you know it, period.

You lose in every conceivable way. Live with it.

Click to expand...

Do I need to type slower?

W i l l m a k I n g a u t o m a t I c w e a p o n s l e g a l r e d u c e c r I m e?

Don't dodge by saying they are legal, just 'highly regulated'. So are tanks.



And that question is in no way, shape, or form a 'straw man argument'. It's a question, first of all, not an argument, and it elicits a very specific point- at what level of weapon regulation do you cross the line between personal protection vs. public harm?

Threegoofs said:

Do I need to type slower?

W i l l m a k I n g a u t o m a t I c w e a p o n s l e g a l r e d u c e c r I m e?

Don't dodge by saying they are legal, just 'highly regulated'. So are tanks.

Click to expand...

What part of "they are already legal" do I need to explain in detail? What part of "highly regulated" needs explanation?

On top of that you are still dodging everything else. I wonder why?

apdst said:

Or, fewer hoodlums equals less crime.

Click to expand...

Of course, to the Democrats that control Chicago, fewer hoodlums would also mean fewer votes for them, and more votes for their opposition. Violent criminals, gang members, drug dealers, petty robbers, and such, are their most important constituency. It's pretty much the same situation that led to the Sullivan Act in New York. Government by the criminals, of the criminals, for the criminals. Gun control is favored because it makes it easier and safer for criminals to do their jobs.

Higgins86 said:

That's my issue people tend to overreact. 18 year old lad makes some bad choices and robs a car should he then be potentially gunned down by a local boy scout? People make mistakes and its the job of the police to detain them and put them through the system. Without basic law and order we are nothing.

Click to expand...

Are you trying to generate sympathy for an 18-year-old “lad” who “makes some bad choices” to try to rob someone? Sell it somewhere else; nobody is buying it here.

Eighteen is definitely, undeniably old enough that one can fully be expected to understand the seriousness of such a crime, and the danger inherent in committing it. That's not just “making a bad choice”; that is willfully choosing to commit a serious crime, that puts one's self and others in mortal danger, and is intended to seriously violate the rights of another. If some cretin gets himself killed as a consequence of “making a bad choice” in this manner, then he gets no sympathy from me. Society is better off without him; and society would be better off without those like you who take the side of subhuman scum such as this.

Really, all you demonstrate by making such an argument is what I have observed several times in the past, that those of you on the “gun control side” are willfully on the side of violent, dangerous criminals, and against that of honest law-abiding citizens.

Goshin said:

Stealing a car isn't a prank or a bit of mischief, it is a felony crime, and an 18yo is old enough to know better. He may well be depriving a family man of his only transportation to and from work; that is no joke.

Click to expand...

A century ago, stealing a horse was often considered a “hanging” offense, for exactly that reason. To deprive a man of his only means of transportation was to potentially deprive him of his ability to make his living, and to feed himself and his family.

Goshin {to head of joaquin} said:

And then you wake up and realize that most law abiding people aren't that stupid and reckless.... or then again, maybe you don't realize it. That would explain a lot.

Click to expand...

He probably doesn't know any law-abiding people, nor does he likely know anyone who isn't that stupid and reckless. Certainly, he comes across as someone who is more likely to associate primarily with stupid, reckless criminals than with intelligent, careful, law-abiding citizens; and to assume that most people are very much like those with whom he associates.

stonewall50 said:

They are legal. What is your point? That we should reduce firearms legislation? Or are you trying to troll?

You know automatic weapons are only efficient in the hands of someone who is trained to use automatic weapons right? Most people can't handle semi automatic efficiently either. Wait. I'm sensing a pattern. Efficiency doesn't seem to be based on the gun, but on another variable.

Click to expand...

No matter how well one trains there are still tradeoffs to going full auto. Sure, you can send a wall of bullets out, but at the loss of accuracy, unless one knows how to use rideup to their advantage, or has good trigger discipline all they are really going to accomplish is firing off their entire ammunition supply in a few seconds, possibly hitting the mark a couple of times. Then there is the mounted machine gun, but that is not really all that great at creating a civilian killing spree due to the lack of mobility. Even when a person is trained in the maximization of a full auto weapon, it will never be the "super gun" the antis paint them to be.

Higgins86 said:

you could use that argument with almost any trained professional, fireman for example arrive at the scene after the fire has started and often are unable to save the people inside. Should we arm the local community with hoses, helmets and ladders as well?

Click to expand...

This is mounted on the wall outside my apartment building, not ten feet from my door.



Perhaps you disagree, but most people think it's a very good idea to have a fire extinguisher, at the very least, in an easily-accessible place. I know that many larger buildings (the church that I attend, for example,and the factory where I used to work) have fire hoses and other firefighting equipment in similarly-easy-to-access places around the building. Perhaps you think it best to just wait for the trained professionals to arrive and deal with an emergency; but most of us think it's a good idea for common folks to have easy access to basic emergency equipment, and to know how to use it.

Goshin said:

I remember many years ago when I did a study of European and American duelling customs from early Renaissance to the dawn of the 20th century; one of my first surprises was that most duels did not end with someone dead. Indeed one scholar calculated that at the height of French dueling culture, barely 1 duel in 50 resulted in fatality…

Click to expand...

It's my understating that back when all duels were fought with swords, they were nearly always fought to “first blood”, meaning that as soon as one combatant managed to inflict a bleeding wound on the other, the duel was over, and the one with the bleeding wound was considered to have lost. I imagine that once in a great while, such duels ended with the loser dead or mortally wounded, but not by intent. True duels “to the death” were very rare,

I understand it all changed when swords gave way to dueling pistols, which had a much higher likelihood of inflicting a fatal wound regardless of the intent of the person wielding it. Guns made dueling much more dangerous, and led to the practice of dueling becoming rapidly less popular and less accepted.

These Are The People In Your Neighborhood

Threegoofs said:

Do I need to type slower?

W i l l m a k I n g a u t o m a t I c w e a p o n s l e g a l r e d u c e c r I m e?

Don't dodge by saying they are legal, just 'highly regulated'. So are tanks.



And that question is in no way, shape, or form a 'straw man argument'. It's a question, first of all, not an argument, and it elicits a very specific point- at what level of weapon regulation do you cross the line between personal protection vs. public harm?

Click to expand...

Like I said. No way to respond to what he said.

They are legal. You have nothing to argue with so now you avoid his statement. Seriously dude. Give up. You think you are making point...but you are not making the one you think. All we have heard is this: you don't know firearms legislation.

Bob Blaylock said:

It's my understating that back when all duels were fought with swords, they were nearly always fought to “first blood”, meaning that as soon as one combatant managed to inflict a bleeding wound on the other, the duel was over, and the one with the bleeding wound was considered to have lost. I imagine that once in a great while, such duels ended with the loser dead or mortally wounded, but not by intent. True duels “to the death” were very rare,

I understand it all changed when swords gave way to dueling pistols, which had a much higher likelihood of inflicting a fatal wound regardless of the intent of the person wielding it. Guns made dueling much more dangerous, and led to the practice of dueling becoming rapidly less popular and less accepted.

Click to expand...

To a degree yes, but a bit more complex than that.

Early pistols were notoriously inaccurate. Most were not rifled; at least, it was considered bad form to duel with pistols with rifled barrels. The way the barrels were drilled, there was some "drift" in the tubeway and most pistols tended to shoot slightly left or right... and since most duels were fought with matching pistols borrowed from a neutral 3rd party, likely neither duelist knew which way his pistol shot would drift or by how much. Thus, the first shot was most likely to miss. Three shots were typically allowed, but the duel might be stopped after the first or second fire if the combatants held themselves "satisfied"... and given how nerve-wracking standing in one spot while being shot at would be, they often did.

Pistol balls were also relatively low-penetration compared to the .75 caliber balls thrown by the Brown Bess, for instance.

So fatalities were not as high in early pistol duels as you might think.

NOW when they got better at drilling straight barrels that shot straight, and when rifling became more common in pistols, duels did tend more often to result in fatality, and that was a factor in their loss of societal support. Actually duels were almost always illegal to some degree, but the laws were rarely enforced. When they went to "conical balls" (bullet shaped bullets) and then to revolvers, pistols became quite deadly indeed within their effective range.




Sorry for the long exposition, you pushed my "talk" button...

Threegoofs said:

Do I need to type slower?

W i l l m a k I n g a u t o m a t I c w e a p o n s l e g a l r e d u c e c r I m e?

Don't dodge by saying they are legal, just 'highly regulated'. So are tanks.



And that question is in no way, shape, or form a 'straw man argument'. It's a question, first of all, not an argument, and it elicits a very specific point- at what level of weapon regulation do you cross the line between personal protection vs. public harm?

Click to expand...

As he said earlier, they are already legal. All you need to do is fill out a few forms and submit a $200 dollar tax and you too can own a fully legal, bonafide machine gun. If you form a trust, then the only background check required is a standard NICs check when you pick up the firearm. But the answer is no, they have not reduced crime. Nor have they increased crime. So what is the point you are trying to make? Can you give us an example of a legally owned, fully automatic weapon being used to cause public harm? Where do you think we should draw the line?

BTW, tanks are legal to own as well....

Both are freedoms for rich folks.